In philosophy you’re not expected to have charming, catchy openers

Feedback

In philosophy you’re not expected to have charming, catchy openers (though these are not frowned on when done well; for example, Leopold’s use of Odysseus is terrific). Notice that authors like Taylor, Sandler, and Rolston start right off with a substantive description or statement concerning what they will argue. However, the principle to keep in mind is that the opening is the first opportunity to make an impression on your reader. Consequently, there are a couple things to keep in mind.First, make sure it’s free of errors—typographical, stylistic, or substantive. Poor grammar, misspelled words, and inaccurate statements are impression killers.

Likewise, avoid trite opening lines—generic or obvious statements that usually say little more than “I don’t know how to begin my paper, but I have to say something.”For example, “Throughout history, people have argued about ethics,”or “Different people have different ideas about the value of the environment”are trite openers and should be avoided.

In your opening, above everything else, you want to make it clear to your reader what your paper is going to be about. A clear, easy to pick out thesis sentence is crucial. Since the thesis sentence is the most important part of your opening, make sure it’s as polished and articulate a sentence as you can make it. The thesis ought to tell your reader exactly what you will be arguing in your paper. In addition, it ought to give the reader some hint about why you’re going to argue that way. Note the difference in the following thesis sentences from your peers: “In this paper, I will argue that religion provides a better basis for Leopold’s land ethic than the philosophers we studied;”and “Despite a sophisticated argument that successfully disarms many of the attacks typically used to support human superiority, Taylor’s biocentric theory of equality is simply too radical to adequately serve as a land ethic.”The first example states clearly what will be argued in the paper. The second example does so as well but also clues the reader in and sets the tone of and expectations for the paper. It gives the reader more specifics and serves as a better standard against which one can judge the success of the paper.